With the ruling of a federal judge last week that declared part of Utah's anti-polygamy law unconstitutional, the left finds itself torn. Of course, with their ever-wavering consciences that are willing to go along with whatever seems the latest fad that tests our moral boundaries (especially in the sexual realm), some liberals say that it is time that we take a closer look at plural marriage. After all, if consenting adults want to enter into such relationships, what is the problem? In other words, as I asked over five years ago, what's wrong with polygamy? However, some liberals took comfort in the fact that the federal judge's ruling in the Utah case was somewhat limited in its scope. So don't worry, declares Jay Bookman of the AJC, (in spite of where the redefining of marriage will eventually lead us) judge Waddoups' ruling "does not in any way require government to recognize a polygamous marriage."

Haven't we heard something like this before? No need to amend the U.S. Constitution to define marriage as a union between one man and one woman; the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) is sufficient. For over a decade (and marriage has only been an electoral issue for little more than a decade), the vast majority of elected U.S. Democrats were for biblical marriage, until they were against it. In 1996 DOMA passed by a 342 to 67 margin in the U.S. House, and an 85 to 14 margin in the Senate, and was signed by President Clinton.

"After DOMA, until 2003, only three U.S. states (AK, NE, NV) saw fit to amend their constitutions to limit the legal definition of marriage to a union of one man and one woman. And just as they now have with polygamy, the liberal courts struck. In Lawrence v. Texas, the U.S. Supreme Court in a 6 to 3 ruling (reversing itself from the 1986 Bowers v. Georgia) overturned the Texas anti-sodomy law and thus invalidated similar laws in the 12 states that still had them on their books. Of course, as liberals now point out with polygamy, the Lawrence ruling in no way granted gays the legal right to marry, but it did give legal (and inevitably cultural) legitimization to homosexual activity. Then the liberal courts struck again, as they almost certainly will do (if they follow their own liberal logic) in the case of polygamy."

If everything hinges on “equal rights”, then polygamy will be allowed. At this point I don’t even care any more. Judges are making up laws as they go. Christians are being more marginalized every day. America is becoming weaker in many ways. Obama is hastening our demise but it has been coming for a long time. Makes me glad I’m old.

After DOMA, until 2003, only three U.S. states (AK, NE, NV) saw fit to amend their constitutions to limit the legal definition of marriage to a union of one man and one woman.
__________________________________

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

Tennessee Marriage Protection Amendment

state constitutional amendment barring same-sex unions first proposed in 2004 and adopted in 2006

only marriage between a man and a woman will be recognized by the state..

voted by 81% of the people and adopted

and guess what ???

we didn’t have the Mormons coming here to get in our way and mess up the process..

The States have to be willing to tell de facto Anthony Kennedy to shove his ruling up his ass if he tries to force the nation to accept gay marriage. Just because he's on a crusade does not mean the States can't fight back.

Do these people not understand what they are doing? What if 1,000 people want to get “married” or what if A,B,C,D, and E are “married” but A and B want out. C wants to stay married to D and A, but divorce the rest. E wants to stay married to everyone, and on and on. This will bring the courts to a standstill over problems with property settlements, inheritance, alimony, and the most destructive issue of all, child custody.

Polygamy has only worked (if you want to call it that) in situations where the women involved felt bound by religious convictions. It was a small, self-regulating little world. It’s horribly immoral, but they kept to themselves.

If you unleash the idea that the word marriage has no definition, then society will unravel. You simply cannot have order and stability and a secure way of raising children unless you have marriage according to the actual definition of the word.

This continuing decline of morals and standards in this country will lead to its destruction.

14
posted on 12/22/2013 7:54:07 PM PST
by Pining_4_TX
(All those who were appointed to eternal life believed. Acts 13:48)

“If you unleash the idea that the word marriage has no definition, then society will unravel. You simply cannot have order and stability and a secure way of raising children unless you have marriage according to the actual definition of the word.

“This continuing decline of morals and standards in this country will lead to its destruction.”

Bingo. That’s the left’s true goal in all this “marriage ‘redefinition’” nonsense. Destroy the natural family and replace it with the state.

Yes, that’s true. There might be instances where women will have an older husband and a boy-toy for fun, but in general, women want stable money. The vast majority of women have no appetite for risk, they want a nice, steady income or a large pile of cash to make it easy for them to sleep at night. Perhaps about 50% of women are willing to sell their souls to the devil for this stability. They’ll accept polygamy much more readily, just as they’ve bought into the welfare state at much higher rates than men have.

What men want in a woman is less nagging, more sex and more cooking. Women who would keep more than one man aren’t likely to be doing a whole lot of sex for all the men, and I’ll wager they won’t be doing any cooking. Why would any man go into this type of situation unless he has absolutely no potential to get some woman by other means?

As I said, this will implode on the feminists, most of whom are actually looking for very high-earning alpha males. Even that moron Gloria Steinem (”a woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle”) married up - way, way up. A guy who, when they married, was worth something like $70M.

Sandra Fluke? Her boy toy is a very rich European Jewish socialist. Old money. Likes to goof off banging his fists on a gut-fiddle.

I can name others, but if you noodle around yourself, you’ll see the trend.

Now, imagine a world where polygamy is legal. Suddenly, those very well-to-do men don’t have to put up with even one feminist at home, no matter how much of a tiger in the sack she might be. He could have a whole bunch of women, most all of whom will likely be a whole lot more pleasant to be around than a feminist. The feminists will do a lot of tut-tutting in print, they’ll campaign against the situation, but once men can legitimize having multiple wives? Hey, you know that some men will go for it, eight days a week, and more to the point, it will be the rich, influential men who will benefit disporportionately from polygamy.

Then there’s the other kink: As soon as this is legalized, the big religious supporters of this won’t be the FLDS - it will be the Muslims, who are allowed up to four wives if they can support them all. Well, the FLDS has shown the way on that one - “marry” only one in a civil ceremony, marry the rest in a religious ceremony (to keep them off the public record), then have the other three apply for AFDC, SNAP, etc for their support.

As I said: Feminism will go extinct within two generations. Oh, there will continue to be the bitter-pill feminists, most of whom are shrew-like female Jewish socialists with far more education than they have actual IQ points. The Muslims will take care of this and cow them into silence.

Everyone deserves what they want, good and hard. In legalizing polygamy, the feminists who wanted to eliminate men from society will get what they worked for - good and hard.

LOL FOX. Just one woman on PMS is enough to drive a guy nuts. Picture Al Bundy.

But, to be theoretical here, the concept of marriage being defined as one man and one woman has been destroyed by letting a man marry a man and a woman marry a woman. That being the case, will the left now argue that marriage can only be between two people? If marriage is no longer defined as being between one man and one woman, will it expand to mean multiple men can marry each other, multiple women can marry each other, multiple men can marry one woman or several women, or multiple women can marry one man or several men? What if you have 500 unemployed men and 500 unemployed women. Can they all marry each other and then apply for foods stamps and other forms of welfare? In my humble opinion, this is one sleeping dog the left should have let lie. But the god of the left is CHAOS, and their god is well pleased.

22
posted on 12/22/2013 11:28:18 PM PST
by Enterprise
("Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities." Voltaire)

Polygamy seems intrinsically flawed. In odd number scenarios, the “odd man out” will start to feel neglected or objectified as the ones that get along more with each other, spend more time together. Over a period of time, divorce will become appealing to them (They don’t really feel loved any more right?) and take 1/(# of marriage participants) possessions. In even number scenarios, sub-pairings are likely to occur that are not in everyone’s best desires (A pairs with D, B wanted to be with D, but must settle with C for now). Thus, they aren’t getting the level/kind of attention that they wanted out of the relationship and follow the same situation as the above.
You could limit the damage with contracts that protect each individual’s property, but not many people who stay home to watch the kids or take care of the home will want that.

Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.